Part 1: The training of course development staff in open and distance learning

Part 2: Rewarding writers of course material for open and distance learning

Introduction

1. Many educational institutions are developing or expanding
programmes of open and distance learning (ODL forthwith), mainly for students
off-campus. All face difficulties in ensuring that teaching materials of the
right quality are developed and produced on time. Part of the solution to the
problem lies in training and part in the policies and management structures that
will encourage the timely development of good materials. This report examines
aspects of these solutions in two separate but complementary enquiries: the
first centres on the training of course development staff in open and distance
learning; the second on rewarding the writers of course material for open and
distance learning.

2. In both enquiries, our main interest is in developing-country
institutions. Nevertheless, we have also drawn on industrialised-country
experience partly out of a desire to find good answers anywhere to a universal
problem, partly because of the similarity in educational practices even within
very different countries. Both pieces of research identify the distinction
between single and dual-mode institutions as a critical factor in the analysis
of data. Single-mode institutions are those that use only a single mode of
teaching. They include both conventional universities, with no programmes of
open and distance learning, and open universities. This report is mainly
concerned with the latter and with dual-mode institutions. As open universities
and colleges are dedicated to teaching only off-campus students, their
organisational structures are different from those of dual-mode institutions,
concerned with students both on and off-campus.

3. Dual-mode universities themselves vary. Distinctions can be
approached in terms of organisational integration or the capacity of an ODL
centre. In some cases, for example, only a handful of courses are available
through open and distance learning and administrative arrangements for open and
distance learning affect only a minority of university staff. In contrast some
institutions have moved towards a policy of flexible learning whereby there is a
breaking-down of distinctions between on- and off-campus teaching. In some
institutions, the capacity of a central ODL unit may be purely administrative.
In others, it has overall responsibility for the pedagogical quality of ODL
materials, and for staff training.

4 The two reports are intended both to help developing-country
institutions and to see how the British educational resource might best be
deployed to enhance quality within them. We hope that our recommendations,
mainly in paras. 47, 73 to 95 and 138 to 142, will be useful to people within
both constituencies. One underlying theme of the reports is the belief that
benefits will flow as institutions are enabled to share good management
practice. Another is the need to develop professionalism within open and
distance learning in order to make the next leap in quality. Both themes can
inform institutional practice on the ground and provide guidance for the design
of aid projects or programmes.

5. We are grateful to the Department for International
Development, which funded the bulk of the work, and to the Commonwealth of
Learning for its support. We are also, of course, indebted to the respondents to
our enquiry, without whose help the report could not have been written.